UN Human Wrongs Council

Could they distinguish between a democratic state and a terrorist entity? Clearly not.

October 16, 2009 -- Some votes are eminently forgettable. Others are not.

Today's vote in the mistakenly-named UN Human Rights Council is the latter. Although denunciations of Israel have become commonplace in the Council, this vote provides a window into the souls of those 47 member states that currently belong to this Geneva-based body, and what we see will be long remembered.

In effect, the countries were asked a rather simple set of questions.

Could they distinguish between a democratic state, Israel, and a terrorist entity, Hamas?

Could they recall that one nation, Israel, had left Gaza completely in 2005, while another group, Hamas, had seized control two years later, ousting the Palestinian Authority and strengthening ties with terrorist-funding, weapons-supplying Iran?

Could they recognize the legitimate right of a nation, Israel, to self-defense against a non-state actor, Hamas, that openly declares a desire to obliterate it?

Could they differentiate between the arsonist in the conflict, Hamas, and the firefighter, Israel?

Could they grasp the inherent challenge for a military, in this case Israel's, to uproot a terrorist infrastructure, that of Hamas, which had deeply embedded itself in a civilian population?"

Could they acknowledge what was obvious to a top British military officer, Colonel Richard Kemp, that one party to the conflict, Israel, had gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid civilian casualties?

Click below to watch video of Colonel Kemp.

Could they admit that the UN Human Rights Council was so viscerally anti-Israel, as evidenced by the stunning fact that 80 percent of its resolutions adopted over the past three years have focused on Israel alone, that it could not be deemed an objective body?

Could they recognize that the mandate of Judge Richard Goldstone and his three colleagues, including one who had publicly convicted Israel before joining the group, was inherently biased, charged with investigating what were already deemed to be Israeli "war crimes," while ignoring the thousands of Hamas missile and mortar attacks that preceded Israel's entry into Gaza?

And could they accept that the resolution before them spoke only of Israel, not of Hamas?

The verdict is now in.

Twenty-five countries voted for the resolution.

In most cases, there were no surprises.

All the members of the Arab League and most of the Organization of the Islamic Conference voted in lockstep to condemn Israel. No news there.

And the worst offenders against human rights, quite naturally, supported the resolution, happy to have attention once again deflected from their own shameful records. Again, no news there.

But there were a few unhappy surprises, particularly Argentina, Brazil, and Chile.

As democratic countries, they should have known better. Was there more to gain by opposing Israel than supporting it, or, at the very least, abstaining? Or were they motivated by some fanciful notion of human rights in the abstract that was completely detached from the reality on the ground thousands of miles away in the Middle East?

Then there were the six countries - Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Slovakia, Ukraine and the United States - that stood up to the mob and voted against the resolution. Their moral clarity and political principle were on display. They deserve appreciation and recognition.

We should remember these six countries, just as we recall those that stood up to the herd mentality in Geneva at the so-called Durban II conference in April which similarly singled out Israel for denunciation--Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland and the United States.

And then there are the other 16 countries that did not vote in favor of the resolution, some abstaining, others absenting themselves.

In a multilateral setting, those actions can at times be acts of bravery. Not always, however.

It was regrettable that Britain and France, with their profound understanding of Middle Eastern realities, were not in the hall to cast a "no" vote. They should have been.

On the other hand, kudos to Mexico and Uruguay, the only Latin American countries on the Human Rights Council not to vote in favor.

And it was gratifying to see several African nations - Angola, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, and Gabon - break group ranks and not endorse a one-sided resolution that even Richard Goldstone himself condemned today for its inherent unfairness.

Courage and principle are always in short supply.

When they're on display, as several countries demonstrated in Geneva, they should be acknowledged. But when they are overridden, and injustice and expediency become norms of the day, we must speak out loud and clear.

Visitor Comments: 8

(8)
sally,
March 17, 2011 3:05 AM

Brazil and Argentina's reaction

In the case of these 2 countries, we must note that both have significant and affluent arab communities, and also easily bought governments. Wouldnt be surprised if Iranian money is used for these purposes.

(7)
Anonymous,
October 22, 2009 8:25 PM

Goldstone is a quintessential example of injustice, a traitor to his own people, roots and heritage. He has given the green light to the enemies of Israel to jump on his bandwagon, pushing his personal bias as factual information. He had better have a good defense lawyer when he is judged in the heavens. What a disgrace to his people, religion and G-d that this man has joined forces with the enemy. I feel sorry for his soulas he has truly maligned not only Israel but himself. He has no guts, a low self esteem and if this is his way of achieving honor, how pathetic.

(6)
Anonymous,
October 20, 2009 3:42 AM

I am writing from Brazil. During the war in Gaza, Brazillian government representatives put out an official note relaying the government party´s opinion on the war. The note was shocking, calling Israel terrorists, and condemning them for the war while totally ignoring Hamas and its place in the war. The jewish community went up in arms. Letters of indignation from Jewish representatives and a meek excuse from a few members of the government was all that came out of this ugly story. A few months later, the president had alredy confirmed his intentions to receive Ahmadinejad in the country (the trip was cancelled in the last minute by Ahmadinejad - not because our president got any sense knocked into his head). When you follow the trend that goes on in the country, this UN resolution really comes as no surprise at all.

(5)
Yak Fatzko,
October 19, 2009 11:57 AM

Pharao's advisors - courage and cowardice.

Bilaam - voted to to destroy the Jews. Iyov (Job) abstained. Yisro (Jethro) - voted to let the Jews live
What happened to them?
Bilaam (the condemner) went on to become powerful for a time but was then obliterated by Moses and his very evil designs were used by God to praise God and Israel.
Job was tested severely with tremendous suffering.
Yisro had to flee for his life - but later became the honored witness to God's revelation at Sinai, the father-in-law of Moses and immortalized in the Torah with the section containing the Revelation named for him!

(4)
manugw,
October 18, 2009 6:35 PM

World media is in a way guilty

If you read the world media always "Israel attacks in response to..." (Israel never defends itself) and in respect of the Gaza crisis, they never mention the fact that" Israel left the strip in 2005"

(3)
Alfred Biegel,
October 18, 2009 6:11 PM

Very well written! Judicious

Superb and judicios summary!

(2)
bob costrell,
October 18, 2009 5:53 PM

India

The most troublesome vote was cast by India, in favor of the Goldstone report. Long a partner with Israel and the West in the fight against terrorism, this was a very puzzling disappointment.

(1)
Bobby5000,
October 18, 2009 10:41 AM

Why Mexico voted for Israel

Let's be clear, Mexico was not a voice of conscience or justice. Some years ago on I believe the Zionism is racism resolution, Mexico voted to condemn Israel. Guess what, Hadassah decided to cancel their convention in Acapulco, and other groups did the same. Shortly thereafter, Mexico explained the vote was an error.

I live in rural Montana where the Cholov Yisrael milk is difficult to obtain and very expensive. So I drink regular milk. What is your view on this?

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

Jewish law requires that there be rabbinic supervision during the milking process to ensure that the milk comes from a kosher animal. In the United States, many people rely on the Department of Agriculture's regulations and controls as sufficiently stringent to fulfill the rabbinic requirement for supervision.

Most of the major Kashrut organizations in the United States rely on this as well. You will therefore find many kosher products in America certified with a 'D' next to the kosher symbol. Such products – unless otherwise specified on the label – are not Cholov Yisrael and are assumed kosher based on the DOA's guarantee.

There are many, however, do not rely on this, and will eat only dairy products that are designated as Cholov Yisrael (literally, "Jewish milk"). This is particularly true in large Jewish communities, where Cholov Yisrael is widely available.

Rabbi Moshe Feinstein wrote that under limited conditions, such as an institution which consumes a lot of milk and Cholov Yisrael is generally unavailable or especially expensive, American milk is acceptable, as the government supervision is adequate to prevent non-kosher ingredients from being added.

It should be added that the above only applies to milk itself, which is marketed as pure cow's milk. All other dairy products, such as cheeses and butter, may contain non-kosher ingredients and always require kosher certification. In addition, Rabbi Feinstein's ruling applies only in the United States, where government regulations are considered reliable. In other parts of the world, including Europe, Cholov Yisrael is a requirement.

There are additional esoteric reasons for being stringent regarding Cholov Yisrael, and because of this it is generally advisable to consume only Cholov Yisroel dairy foods.

In 1889, 800 Jews arrived in Buenos Aires, marking the birth of the modern Jewish community in Argentina. These immigrants were fleeing poverty and pogroms in Russia, and moved to Argentina because of its open door policy of immigration. By 1920, more than 150,000 Jews were living in Argentina. Juan Peron's rise to power in 1946 was an ominous sign, as he was a Nazi sympathizer with fascist leanings. Peron halted Jewish immigration to Argentina, introduced mandatory Catholic religious instruction in public schools, and allowed Argentina to become a haven for fleeing Nazis. (In 1960, Israeli agents abducted Adolf Eichmann from a Buenos Aires suburb.) Today, Argentina has the largest Jewish community in Latin America with 250,000, though terror attacks have prompted many young people to emigrate. In 1992, the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires was bombed, killing 32 people. In 1994, the Jewish community headquarters in Buenos Aires was bombed, killing 85 people. The perpetrators have never been apprehended.

Be aware of what situations and behaviors give you pleasure. When you feel excessively sad and cannot change your attitude, make a conscious effort to take some action that might alleviate your sadness.

If you anticipate feeling sad, prepare a list of things that might make you feel better. It could be talking to a specific enthusiastic individual, running, taking a walk in a quiet area, looking at pictures of family, listening to music, or reading inspiring words.

While our attitude is a major factor in sadness, lack of positive external situations and events play an important role in how we feel.

[If a criminal has been executed by hanging] his body may not remain suspended overnight ... because it is an insult to God (Deuteronomy 21:23).

Rashi explains that since man was created in the image of God, anything that disparages man is disparaging God as well.

Chilul Hashem, bringing disgrace to the Divine Name, is one of the greatest sins in the Torah. The opposite of chilul Hashem is kiddush Hashem, sanctifying the Divine Name. While this topic has several dimensions to it, there is a living kiddush Hashem which occurs when a Jew behaves in a manner that merits the respect and admiration of other people, who thereby respect the Torah of Israel.

What is chilul Hashem? One Talmudic author stated, "It is when I buy meat from the butcher and delay paying him" (Yoma 86a). To cause someone to say that a Torah scholar is anything less than scrupulous in meeting his obligations is to cause people to lose respect for the Torah.

Suppose someone offers us a business deal of questionable legality. Is the personal gain worth the possible dishonor that we bring not only upon ourselves, but on our nation? If our personal reputation is ours to handle in whatever way we please, shouldn't we handle the reputation of our nation and the God we represent with maximum care?

Jews have given so much, even their lives, for kiddush Hashem. Can we not forego a few dollars to avoid chilul Hashem?

Today I shall...

be scrupulous in all my transactions and relationships to avoid the possibility of bringing dishonor to my God and people.

With stories and insights,
Rabbi Twerski's new book Twerski on Machzor makes Rosh Hashanah prayers more meaningful. Click here to order...